With it, it feels like Adobe is turning its back on a certain type of enthusiast photographers: those users who enjoy and care about their photography enough to buy Adobe's products, but don't need to edit 'in the field' or have clients to justify the ongoing cost of subscription software.

What's that, Granddad, software in a box? How do you get it onto your phone, then?

With the company stressing ease of use of the latest version, they probably don't see it that way, but it's clear that the user who upgrades their camera and their software only occasionally has no place in Adobe's shiny new future in the cloud.

In my look back at my excitement surrounding the development and launch of Lightroom v1.0, I said I felt that the subscription model "runs counter to the longevity benefit of building a database around my images". I stand by that.

The tension at the heart of Lightroom

As I understood it, Lightroom was almost two pieces of software in one. In part it was an attempt to provide all the tools a broad range of photographers needed, without the cost and complexity of buying Photoshop. Photoshop's success and name recognition had meant that lots of users who didn't really need most of its capabilities, felt they had to buy it. Lightroom gave them an affordable alternative, and allowed Adobe to focus on their professional users (in both photo and non-photographic fields), with Photoshop.

archiving: the creation of a long-term library of work that you might want to refer back to and perhaps update

But, equally, Lightroom was Adobe's attempt to bring an asset management tool to a wide range of photographers who suddenly found themselves generating and needing to process and store many more images than they had done before. Part of that management is archiving: the creation of a long-term library of work that you might want to refer back to and perhaps update.

The move to subscription only for Lightroom undermines both the idea of an affordable alternative also, significantly, the idea of an usable archive. While it's true that most households readily spend $10 per month for online streaming services, and many times that for mobile phone and data services, there will be a lot of users who object to the idea of having to pay, in perpetuity, for the continued ability to edit their own archives. Especially if their needs haven't necessarily changed and where there isn't necessarily an ongoing cost to the company.

most households readily spend $10 per month for online streaming services, and many times that for mobile phone and data services

Adobe seemed to recognize this when it chose to continue Lightroom 5 and then 6 as a standalone products alongside its CC software, and said it had no plans to move to subscription only. But it probably should've been obvious that this position had changed as the company buried the link to the standalone version in ever more obscure corners of its website.

Change vs long-term plans

Of course, there'll be plenty of users who are quite happy to pay for online storage and the access-and-edit-anywhere capability of the new system. Given how many attempts Adobe has made at solving this problem (I'm looking at you, Carousel/Revel), it'll probably be pretty good, despite my reservations about the effect on quality/stability that the move to constant updates has had on Photoshop. Overall, it's just unfortunate for people who don't particularly want that product.

The idea that your existing work becomes less controllable, less dynamic, is uncomfortable.

At the risk of sounding older and more curmudgeonly than I really am: it's the principle of the thing. I've never had much sympathy for people expecting perpetual upgrades from Adobe, for free: if you spend hundreds of dollars on a new camera, it seems unrealistic to expect a corporation to accommodate that choice, unpaid. After all, you still had exactly what you'd paid for.

With a subscription model, that's no longer true. Instead you end up paying for support for ever more cameras you don't have and features you don't necessarily want, in the knowledge that you'll lose most of the software's capability if, for whatever reason, you don't choose to continue your subscription. The idea that your existing work becomes less controllable, less dynamic, is uncomfortable.

Why I'll be looking for other options

The idea of losing the ability to edit my existing files, even though my needs haven't changed is obnoxious enough that I don't want to further commit myself and my images to a Lightroom database.

That means foregoing the temptation to squeeze the last life out of Lightroom 6 by using the DNG Converter that Adobe, to its credit, updates for free to retain compatibility. Because one day there'll come an operating system that LR 6 won't work with, and my supposedly long-term solution will be reduced in utility.

All purchases are ultimately a balance between what the customer wants and the company is willing to give them, for the money. With this latest move, it feels to me like that balance has been lost: the move favors Adobe much more than it benefits me. The Lightroom I loved is dead, because apparently it's not a product Adobe wants to make anymore.

Comments

I'm with you. I don't mind paying a little more for a monthly subscription but I feel Adobe are trying to hold us to ransom. I resent the fact that they're trying to charge over 1500 PER YEAR to use their software. That's nearly as much as my medical insurance! On point of principle I'm cancelling my subscription and will have nothing more to do with Adobe.

It is always surprising for me that obviously only a limited number of people know IMatch as an alternative. It really is an excellent picture management programme (actually the term digital asset management programme is more accurate), which provides an incredible variety of programme features, be it for example complex renaming, tagging pictures with keywords or categories, organising batch processes and so on, all really easy to set up according to your own wishes. I appreciate in particular the speed even with a very high number of pictures (150.000!), the ease of portability in case you have to put it onto a new computer and finally the superb online support. I use the programme now for more than 10 years and never had to wait for a competent answer to given problem more than a day or two!

Good discussions, but, unfortunately, no solution. Affinity and other "alternatives" do not offer the functionality of LR yet. Or may be I am wrong? What is your experience? Are there any reviews on DPR? The only review I see under "software review" (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews?category=software) is CS6.

I've used Adobe products since the early 1990s, and I actually don't have many gripes about subscription models. I'd rather NOT have them, but I see their value. And, frankly, $10/month is the equivalent of only 2 or 3 Starbucks. It will take YEARS to pay the equiv. of JUST Photoshop's retail price. Both for $10 is a bargain.

But here's the thing...

LR is not an 800-pound gorilla now. Yes by market share, but no longer by capability, and surely not by speed/perf. COP and DxO are great pro-grade products. COP has overcome many of its historic issues with asset management & workflow flexibility. For those who don't need pro-grade features, there are dozens more, like MacPhun's Luminar. 3rd party plugins under LR were nice, but that and a cloud (yet ANOTHER cloud beyond Dropbox, Box, Google, OneDrive, Amazon, etc.) hardly seem like compelling reasons to put up with LR's bloated, skin-crawlingly slow performance, even if it had a great UI. We have legit options now. Find something else!

I bought LR2 full retail. Never felt the need to upgrade until I saw some LR6 features on YouTube. I was ready to buy digital from OSX's App Store, only to find out Adobe moved to subscription based. Alrighty then, back to my LR2.

Adobe hates us early adopters who helped fund LR into future versions.

Agree with all above.It is small time and non-professional photographers who have made Adobe the company it is today.They could lose this base of consumers.I have a 12-month subscription. Just to see where it goes in the future.I have updated to Lightroom Classic.Because I cannot afford to pay monthly to keep photos in the cloud.When I retire will I afford Adobe products?I know several friends who use just Lightroom and Photoshop Elements as an alternative.To Lightroom CC(Is Elements going Subscriptions to?)Others in our camera club have cancelled their subscriptions and have gone to non subscription software.Will other consumers follow suit

by moving us to a monthly 'rental' mode, Adobe is giving a middle finger to the relationship with its customers. LR's community of users has made what is in many respects a one way, once-for-all commitment to Lightroom in terms of time spent learning, habits acquired, shared knowledge, workflow adaptations, customizations, presets, keyword lists, collections and so on. You 'marry' this company, entrusting your photographic life's work to it and it comes back at you with a month by month rental commitment. This indeed is cause for breakup.

I bought LR when it was first introduced and am currently using LR6 along with PS5. I don’t use the software enough to pay a monthly rental fee. I’m done with Adobe. I recently discovered a powerful stand alone program called Afinity Photo that works well for me. It does everything I need. It comes from England, but I don’t mind the fact that they spell color with a “u.” Oh yeah, I bought it on sale for $40. Did Adobe think no one would come along with an alternative?

The subscriptions will lose a lot of casual shooters and amateurs, like me.I shoot one or twice a month, or more if I am on a trip. $10 per month is a huge stepback for me. One time software would be enough for me to use at least few years.

It may be worth for professional shooters using it every day, but not me.

Must a photographer using Adobe's CC software store his/her photos (and processed photos) only in Adobe's cloud? Or can they be stored down here on the ground as well, or just? Pardon my ignorance, I still use CS6.....with an LR "front end", which, of course, will soon no longer be. Do I feel shot in the foot?

I hope other companies will offer good replacements. Some already have fine RAW development support but lack the database feature. Unfortunately, Adobe still has the best user interface so far, even if other software offeres the same features, with the Adobe sliders it often seems easier to hit the wanted target. Processing speed is of course not Adobe's strength, and LR has flaws in sometimes forgetting to update the view on the screen after processing (stays blurred enlarged preview until changing the module forth and back). I will not miss that.Other fine RAW converters do currently focus too much on professional camera support but lack support for RAW-shooting able compact cameras (where RAW really helps to get better quality). So up to now I do not have an alternative, but after this move of Adobe other companies may calculate that putting effort in an enhanced LR6 clone would eventually pay! I will happily spend my money for such a product!

Perhaps it is the every day photographer that will derive the most benefit for what will amount to a lifetime of monthly subscription fees. For the occasional user, I see no benefit at all, just an unneeded expense. I purchased the stand-alone version of LR6 earlier this year. When the glow dims from it. I will be finished with Adobe. I think their is less incentive for software improvements with the monthly payment plan, but others may see it differently. Shame on Adobe for discontinuing support in such a short time for the stand alone version! If you will not support me, I feel no reason to reciprocate. STUFF IT ADOBE!!!

I own LR5.X and have no intention of going any further with LR.My department at work is on an Adobe subscription model and our video guy is always tearing his hair out over the non-stop screwing around by Abobe of the various applications he uses. Some of these so-call "updates" actually break the ap and we need to have a very robust back-up strategy to recover and preserve the work.IMO, this is "hog in trough" by Adobe, smelling corporate subscriptions that run forever and provide a revenue stream.I'll be on the lookout for a potential substutute when LR5 hits the wall, but it won't be Adobe!

By paying to put my photos in the cloud, I am allowing Adobe/Apple/Google/etc, to run their Artificial Intelligence on my photos on their benefits. How come? It should be the opposite, They have to pay me to run their Artificial Intelligence - they call machine learning - on my photos. I am away of this stuff because it is against anything reasonable.

As you say this is not specific to Adobe. You pay: in money or in data. The less competition the more you pay. You pay google every time you use the search engine, you upload your contacts, you use google maps for navigation. Data can be worth a lot. I am sure Amazon and Google know quiet a lot about me.

381/5000I would like to edit my own archive without being dependent on internet, cloud, etc .. LR user from the first release. Use Capture One now for 5 months approx. After reading the latest news, I will convert my 4 LR catalogs (about 70,000 photos) to Capture one. Do not want to be totally dependent on the "Cloud Model" as regards the original archive.

Have a look at IMatch from Photools. Great stuff for managing my 80K photo's (incredibly fast, lots of features and especially for organising). I use it together with PS5. Far better combination than LR.

Excellent! So you got me thinkin" and typin'. The underlying challenge to adobe is the non-pro photo hobbyist, Lightroom and photoshop are very mature that do not motivate the hobbyist to upgrade. If Adobe were to use Microsofts' approach, kill the product. Adobe must fight the fight or go out of business, (ie As 238,000+ former newspaper emp will attest)Camera Raw, the underlying barrier to the hobbyist when they buy new equipment or having to convert all Proprietary RAW files to DNG.In conclusion, If Adobe is to survive, its all about cashflow and the subscription model is really the only alternative for them since the glitter of "got to have enhancements" has faded into Adobe's midlife crisis. For Adobe is to survive, users will need to accept Adobe as a subscription service like phone, TV, newspaper, or cable or "cut the cord" The digital age is the subscription age and so far, it is as palatable as cold potatoes with gravy to most people.

I would have hoped that Adobe also offers the "middle path", i.e. a software that you can infinitely use and pay for updates. Photography is only my hobby but I still "bought" every single Lightroom version starting with 3.0 (or was it 4.0?). The pricing was OK and the upgrades always had something appealing to me. The map module, face recognition, panorama stiching, ... I also found it appealing that Adobe provided updates for new cameras and lenses for free. I would even pay a moderate amount of money for this type of update. If I spend 500$ on a new body, I can pay 10$ for a SW update that supports this camera. Not offering pay-once products will drive some or a lot of users away from Adobe and some new buyers will maybe not buy. Maybe there are a lot of people that do not favor the buy-once approach and* rent their home* rent their car* rent their camera* rent their IPhone. What!!!Rent an IPhone! Are you mad???

emteetank,Your comparisons are flawed. Yes, I (grudgingly) pay every month for phone, TV and newspaper - as well as several online services. The difference is all of those provide me with new content or service - most of them daily.Newspapers didn't collapse because their customers continued to use the old copies of their reporting. This subscription model is all about recurring revenue. The killer for me as a LR user from version 1 is that IF I convert to the subscription model and bite the bullet for $120/year, when the day comes that this cost is too high for my retirement income I will be left with a tool that doesn't allow me to edit the pictures in my growing catalog.

From the user point of view "cloud based" subscription is so insane. Image all applications were "cloud based". A user would have TBs of available storage to use in total and only use maximum 10% of that total. What a waist of resources and $$. Very soon users will face this challenge and will turn around on this "cloud based" subscription fashion.

Because DNG is the only format (of which I'm aware) that stashes everything inside the DNG envelope. No sidecar file is necessary, which is super convenient. It's also easy to retrieve the raw data sans adjustments

I'm not certain what to do either. I only use LR as the "front end" for CS6. And LR6 will be around for a few years anyway. I'm looking for alternatives as well, but it would be very difficult for me to leave Photoshop, which is easier to use than LR and is a topnotch editor. Especially since I also do illustration work. Good luck.

I haven’t read through all 1,500+ messages in this thread, and perhaps this has already been mentioned. I have to wonder if one of Adobe’s motivations for this move is to expand their reach into user’s image libraries. Think of what a treasure trove of data this would be -- camera stats, geocoding, style preferences, face recognition, and much more. I would also imagine that having access to, potentially, billions of reference images could serve as a huge springboard for their AI efforts. Just a thought.

Wow! Reading this blog I've learnt so much about alternatives to LR. I didn't know there were so many. I've since posted on CaptureOne's FB site that as soon as they perfect a way of seamlessly translating a LR catalogue to CaptureOne, I'm in. I hope other providers are now busily working on just this.

To me, it seems as if I bought a great fully operational darkroom, with chemicals etc. that must fully be compatible with all the rest of the system I bought, only to find out the consumables will no longer be available. Blindsided would be a good description.A large number of us have creative abilities and talent that is not commercial focused. When Adobe finally realized they created a monster, a business that did not generate enough return, even though they had beaten off the competition in our market, it was Adios no more Adobe.

Standing "on principle" is fine, unless the product is a useful tool. I'm using LR Classic on the subscription model, as I have a for a few years. It works great for me. I love LR mobile too. I don't mind paying $10/month to ensure that the product is regularly updated. BTW, I switched from Aperture to LR and it was relatively painless. If I have to switch from LR to something else in the future because Adobe discontinues Classic, I'm sure it will be fine too.

Let me guess, you still put lost teeth under your pillow expecting cash in its place the next day. And there's a bottle of Coke and some cookies in front of the fireplace every Dec 24. In short you are an Adobe, Apple, Microsoft dream come true!

@boatphotog: Pardon me if I seem self-important, but your reply to DCSteve is a pile of unnecessary and childish snot. You could have said, "Well, to each his own," and let it go at that. Trashing someone for their opinions should be reserved for Twitter responses to our current president.

For me the on-board pay and stay or in the cloud software subscription is not the problem. They probably even themselves out cost wise over a period of time if you keep your on-board software up to date. The bigger problem is storing your photo's in the cloud. Not everyone has fast internet speeds, some DSLR's are 50MB per shot, so uploading and downloading can be an issue, and also storage capacity will become an issue when they decide to charge extra for the storage.

....and who would be responsible if your images got hacked in the cloud, destroyed or stolen? I bet you would get sweet f a from Adobe. I think the Royal Marines teach their soldiers to always look after their own kit. Why would you leave equipment hidden under a rock, would you trust a rock to care for it. The same with your images, why would you leave them under a corporate rock?

I don't think the problem so much for me is getting them hacked, I'm an amateur and do photography for fun. Fault tolerance in processor systems, dual redundant backups and raid storage etc. lot's of effort and creativity has gone into designing data centres for secure keeping. Banks, governments and the military use them constantly - they may be a bigger target in the claiming scalps hacker world, but they also know that security is their number one priority in staying in business so invest heavily. Home based storage (or careless companies who try to go it alone) are far more likely to get hacked. The real problem I see is that once you have a substantial content loaded it's almost impossible to move and hence you can be held to ransom on costs. Ever tried moving 500GB from one cloud server to another? I'll bet it is neither quick nor without potential for losing data.

hard to add voice to that of others in this discussion without wanting to add profanities at Adobe for the arrogance and disrespect they’re doing this with. Adding insult to injury is the bs from Hogarty about “commitment” to LR Classic. Sure, they have a right to make money. Sure they have had a great year doing that with the move to subscription. Let’s see if they prosper longer term from screwing over people who have stood by them for years. Their brand is dead to me and to almost every other contributor to this thread. Adobe thinks they have the market cornered in LR as a combined photo editor and DAM solution. I am now looking for a DAM solution (PhotoMechanic?) to pair with some photo editor out there (CO, DXO?) and have been sourcing contributions here for ideas. I will do this even if LR is at the moment a better and cheaper solution than my kludge. This is because, as Adobe doesn’t seem to understand, it’s not about their software. It’s about my access to my content.

Adobe's stranglehold has run its course - it has to end now.Google should dump some money to create free and open source alternatives to Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, Indesign and put Adobe out of it's misery.

Soon I will finally upgrade my seven year old MBP. My understanding is that I will likely have to download CS6 from adobe site. I read a few years ago that adobe has cleverly hidden the link deep in their website - likely so one will never find it, give up, and then purchase their cloud version. I hope the link is still there and I will be able to find it when the time comes. But I am not optimistic ☹️

I have used it for years but a bit like a lot of photo editors especially photoshop it does far more than I need. I have rarely had to use its advanced features and this is why Lightroom is/was such a success. It has just about enough editing features to correct the common issues our photos often have. A bit of cropping, the spec removal along with exposure, contrast and sharpening.

I am another one who have cancelled my CC subscription and migrated to Capture One coupled with my old CS4 which I have reinstalled. I was not too keen on the old CC subscription model but accepted it for a couple of years. However, the cloud storing of files - and paying for having access to them - is something I don't want.

DPR, please make a review of Lightroom alternatives atm. While I like Lightroom, I do not want to pay so much since I don't use LR so much. LR6 will do for me still for long time, but eventually Adobe stops updating LR6 with new camera support.

If you are paying a lot of money for cellular phone and data services, you need to look at the options available for saving a lot of money. . .

I recently switched from ATT to Consumer Cellular. Originally marketed mainly to seniors, it's got something for everyone. The company has been around for 22 years and it has been rated #1 for customer service for the past 4 years.

No contracts, no "service" fees, no onerous charges if you use too many minutes or data in your plan. Buy only the amount of time and data you need instead of being limited to arbitrary bundled plans. CC has a variety of phones including the iPhone or bring your own.

My wife and I are paying less than 1/3 what we were paying ATT using off-contract iPhones: $35 month. Coverage is excellent and CC's customer service makes ATT seem like the joke it is. My only regret is not making the switch years ago. When I think of the money I would have saved...!

I, and I suspect many others, are taking advantage of the unlimited storage that comes with Amazon prime. I have nearly 800gb on there backed up from my other local NAS backup. It's free if you have prime

Indeed. Being a market leader is not the same as a monopoly, as I’m confident Adobe will find out soon enough. I think this is a calculated exit from the enthusiast market to focus on the far more lucrative pro-targeting CC. I wonder if they are underestimating the ‘gateway drug’ impact of lightroom standalone though. We shall see.

There is no other company which can offer a huge suite of interoperating professional grade products the way Adobe can. They achieved this status by making good products and by buying up the competition, and it gave Adobe the power to force its customers to sign a lease through which they no longer own what they pay for. Their customers couldn't just say "no" and switch to the Aldus Suite or the Quark Suite or the Macromedia suite because there are no other suites. Now Adobe has leveraged its monopoly to force Lightroom users — most of whom consider switching to different software as having too high a barrier to entry — to sign a lease too.

If the need is there, then someone will fill the void. Once upon a time there was this market giant named GM that in 1960 sold 48.3% of the automobiles in America vs 7.7% for the imports and could not be defeated. Then along came Honda, Toyota, and others, in response to a void created by the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. The smaller and far more fuel efficient cars met a new demand. In 2009 the imports in America owned a 49.5% share and GM 19.5%.

There are plenty of billionaires in the world who could finance a competitor to Adobe, and not even blink if the start-up company went bankrupt.

For photographers there are plenty of options as for the subscription model, this is the future for any serious software product. The Engineering Design Applications world has been doing it for years. The Photography bundle is $9.95, less than a good lunch.

Compared to something like MatLab, Mathcad, etc. which probably have about the same research and effort behind them and cost north of $2k/yr to use, it is a steal.

My opinion, I doubt they will. Elements is bundled with some hardware (cameras or equipment) and the user base for LR and full-blown PS is far greater than the number of users of Elements. I think they see Elements as a way to get people in the door and into their system, so they'll probably keep Elements as a perpetual license. Most enthusiasts I know don't use Elements, but have the Photography pkg, and certain most Pros won't use elements, but rather get the Photography package too. It's probably one of their loss-leader applications that gets you in the door, so to speak.

...thing with Elements is (and there are a number of other software providers with a similar plan), if you don't make the single version so expensive, the user will happily buy the new version each year. This happens ever so often with Magix Video tralala and other stuff from other companies. Same with Element, every year new version, affordable and people have a choice, TIOLI (take it or leave it).Small issue with LR: since it is mainstream, there are many developers that provide plugins, presets, etc. If people now start moving to ON1, CaptureOne, DXO, Luminar, etc etc, where will the presets and plugins go ?

When LR came out I thought brilliant, sensibly priced software backed by a big company. Got to be a safe move from what I was using (Imatch) which was developed by one person. How wrong was I !!

I have worked in software developement myself for 35 years. The O/S on the hardware sold today (HP NonStop servers, formally Tandem) will still run software I wrote all those years ago. Corporate users demand this and would never stand for what Adobe is doing here. So called legacy systems still do lots of work.

Adobe can get away with this because most users are not of the size of Lloyds Bank but are individual pro or amateir photographers who on their own, lack clout.

Personally I think Adobe should be the subject of a class action due to effectively taking away the ownership of images unless you keep paying. It's blackmail in my book. There is a difference between a subscription model for software and having to subscribe to access your own assets, the images.

I so agree with every word you say. I do to work in software development for a comparable time. This entire Cloud fashion is being thrown at us, propelled by herd mentality and corporate interests. Cloud is of course of great interest to businesses and people using the product constantly. And like the "social media" hype, is now thrown at regular people, who might fire up the product every now and than. They are being taken hostage.

I couldn't be more against the software leasing model, but one thing Adobe doesn't block if you end your lease is access to your images. The Library module in Lightroom continues to function. Plus, your originals are directly accessible in the Mac Finder or the Windows Explorer in a hierarchy of normal file folders.

Totally agree! Adobe has lulled us into a situation where it is extremely difficult to move our LR catalogues to another system. I understand DNG's don't translate well, image enhancements and keywording will likely be lost. I suspect this could well be considered anti-competitive behaviour and subject to class action.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Professional commercial photographer Moe Lauchert shares an incredible gallery of film photographs he captured on Ilford HP5 with a Nikonos 5 while serving as a diver at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston, Texas.

We've been shooting with a beta version of the Sony a9's upcoming firmware 5.0. While there's much more analysis to come, we can say it makes for a dead simple AF tracking user experience. Take a look at some of our samples.

The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a compact and light-weight lens for full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLRs. We took it on grand tour of Seattle's top tourist spots and found it makes a pleasant, albeit wide, walking around lens.

Fujifilm has announced its new GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR tele-zoom lens. The lens, equivalent to 79-158mm when mounted on a GFX camera, has image stabilization (with a claimed 5 stops of shake reduction), a linear AF motor and weather-sealing.

Amongst all of the camera news yesterday, Sony also announced its new Imaging Edge mobile app, which replaces PlayMemories Mobile. Three desktop applications have also been updated, adding support for time-lapse movie creation.

Our intrepid team is in San Diego, for the launch of the new Sony a6400. In this short overview video, Carey, Chris and Jordan talk through the main specifications of the new camera, and what they might mean for photographers and videographers.

The Sony a6400 is the company's new midrange mirrorless camera, whose standout features include an advanced autofocus system, flip-up touchscreen LCD and oversampled 4K footage with Log support. Learn more as we go hands-on with the a6400.

Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.